III. Approval of Previous Minutes:

A motion was made and seconded (Doser/Winslow) to approve the
minutes from the March 11, 2013 EAC meeting. The minutes were
approved by a unanimous vote.

IV. EAC Resolutions Status and Updates

A. Legal Request to LEA’s

A number of LEA’s have gotten public records request
letters, inquiring about county specific policies on how
they determine and enforce the three part test at recycling
centers.

Discussed if state can help with these requests but
since they are going to LEA’s, it is a county counsel issue,
not CalRecycle’s.

Unless an LEA receives and follows up on a complaint,
recycling centers fall under code enforcement jurisdiction
in most counties. Most LEA’s don’t have a “policy” with
regard to these excluded sites.

It was suggested that it would be helpful to LEA’s if
CalRecycle would re-iterate their guidelines but Mr. de Bie
indicated they are still in the form of an advisory and
CalRecycle is not revising “Advisories” but is incorporating
new and revised guidance into a web based format.

Possible topic for next County Counsel Conference.

EAC members should discuss at their next round table.

B. Enforcement Strategy Plan

There was some discussion about exactly what was
requested of the Enforcement Section, a revision to the
advisory, a sample work plan template to be inserted into an
enforcement program plan (EPP), or a letter approving LEA
certification.

Mr. Siefert indicated that the request from some LEA’s
was for: a formal letter from CalRecycle approving their LEA
certification, indicating that procedures in place are
consistent with state law; a formal process for the approval
letter; and for enforcement information to be available to
LEA’s via the CalRecycle portal for easy access.

A draft “Statement of Certification” was circulated.

The EPP review currently focuses on the time task
analysis, not procedures, since they vary widely by
jurisdiction.

Mr. de Bie summarized the direction given to the
Enforcement Section moving forward: finalize “affirmation”
letter; work on “model” EPP enforcement section for LEA’s to
use, not use or amend and use at their discretion; and to
compile enforcement case studies as part of the broader
training effort.

C. Inspections at Active Sites with Partial Closure
Activities

There has been an ongoing dialogue about whether or not
LEA’s should be able to cite closure standards for units in
active landfills that have had one or more closure
activities completed.

The only unit of an active landfill that can be
certified closed is a “discreet unit”, defined in 27 CCR
Section 20164 as a portion of a landfill that can be
individually monitored.

The definition of “partial final closure” in the same
section is problematic because it states “the closure of
discrete units of a site consistent with the approved
closure and post-closure maintenance plan.” Mr. de Bie
suggested that CalRecycle do a guide to explain what the
intended meaning is and to ultimately change the regulations
to clarify if necessary.

Preliminary closure plans are part of a joint technical
document (JTD) so violations involving units that have had
one or more closure activities completed can be cited as JTD
violations and as the JTD is incorporated as part of the
facility permit as permit violations.

Until a site is closed, an LEA can accept and approve
preliminary closure plans. The final closure plan is
approved prior to the landfill implementing closure.

Costs incurred by an operator to carry out closure
activities on units in an active site can be subtracted from
the financial assurances amount for final closure after the
closure activities are certified in accordance with 27 CCR
Section 21880.

Broke for lunch at 11:40 a.m. Reconvened at 12:45 p.m.

D. Update from CalRecycle on Draft Title 14/27 Issues

Bob Holmes, Ken Decio and Sue O’Leary now comprise the
team for compostable materials, transfer station and permit
application regulations.

The informal comment period on the most current draft
proposed regulations ended the end of April. Comments are
posted online.

The two big pieces moving forward are land application
and food/vegetative food.

The regulations clarify that compost site operators will
need to get results of metals and pathogen testing before
material can leave a site.

One option being looked at is for a food composter to be
included in a lower tier under proposed regulations, if they
do a demonstration project to support the claim that they
can handle the material.

Next step: formal comment period.

E. CIA Site Enforcement

Big Issue in Southern California--lots of illegal
disposal sites; no good strategy for enforcement.

Mr. Young handed out the priority list of closed,
illegal and abandoned (CIA) sites in the state and explained
how they are “triaged”; “A” rated sites are acted upon
first.

So. CA RT’s would like to see a CIA site working group,
discussing low interest loans for site owners and other
issues.

Ms. Plantz and Mr. Pitts will work on putting together
this group that will also discuss illegal dumping. The scope
of the group will need to be established.

The group will engage California Conference of Directors
of Environmental Health (CCDEH) through this mechanism. A
conference call was planned for August 20th.

F. Update on State Water Board General Composting
Order Development

Mr. Pogue and Mr. Stalker, with the Materials Management
and Local Assistance Section, discussed the history of their
work with the Regional Board on their compost order since
2007.

The current draft order is less prescriptive and more
performance based.

A summary of tiers one and two as well as facility
exemptions was provided.